Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    Making people work in extreme heat is authoritarian.
    No making people work in extreme heat without any attempt to alleviate it is stupid and cruel, they are demoralising their workforce and opening them up for injury liability. However a government legislating on such a common sense facet of life is ridiculous and authoritarian.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    No making people work in extreme heat without any attempt to alleviate it is stupid and cruel, they are demoralising their workforce and opening them up for injury liability. However a government legislating on such a common sense facet of life is ridiculous and authoritarian.


    Employers in this country unfortunately often don't seem to care about what is stupid and cruel
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    Employers in this country unfortunately often don't seem to care about what is stupid and cruel
    I am yet to see an office where this would have any effect.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    I am yet to see an office where this would have any effect.
    Pretty anecdotal. I'd definitely have downed tools today if this policy was in effect
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Nay, government should not legislate on this sort of thing. A sensible company however already does this.
    Why on earth shouldn't they? Should the government legislate on anything in your opinion, or should everyone just do as they like?

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    26 degrees- that's below freezing isn't it?
    Don't you dare! (Unless you mean kelvins, but they aren't degrees, so you're not forgiven for that.)
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Need more details relating to why 26 degrees and what qualifies as a factory/office/warehouse. I'll second about why manual labour is lower too.

    Like the idea though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Need more details relating to why 26 degrees and what qualifies as a factory/office/warehouse. I'll second about why manual labour is lower too.Like the idea though.
    It was in comparison to normal room temperature and the difference between this and the minimum allowed temperature.I will try and make it more clear - i assumed people knew what they were.I have just looked at the bill and they are the wrong way around :/. Manual labour should be a lower temperature.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why is the max temperature for manual work greater than that for office work?

    Surely those expected to be engaged in manual work ought to work in cooler conditions, not hotter, than their desk-bound brothers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Why is the max temperature for manual work greater than that for office work?Surely those expected to be engaged in manual work ought to work in cooler conditions, not hotter, than their desk-bound brothers?
    You are right. We have notified the speaker of the error.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ruitker)
    Or this could give a big boost for green energy being used instead of fossil fuels.It would improve the work life of machines in factories and warehouses so this would reduce the amount of energy used in creating and using new devices, there would be less waste.Stop trying to derail this bill with ludicrous responses. You are clearly still bitter about the whole election thing.
    I disagree with 'big government', that is one of the many reasons that I oppose this bill.
    First off it is proven the people work better in cooler temperatures (There is a follow-up study somewhere). Therefore any sensible company will already keep it cool. Common sense.

    Furthermore does this mean that if an air-con system is broken that a whole company could potentially shut down? I would disagree with this marginally less if 2.1 was amended to say 'Employees can refuse to work if this limit is exceeded for 5 consecutive days.' Otherwise we may have scenarios where whole swathes of government are not working because of a broken air con system.

    However it is the unintended consequences that worry me most. Currently in Heathrow it is in excess of 28 degrees, this ins much the same to many other airports currently (Tarmac soaking up heat, jet engines outputting heat etc. making the outside far hotter than the rest of the country there.) This means that potentially when it gets even slightly hot whole loads of airports may have to shut because those who load the luggage work have downed tools. Or bin collections may be cancelled for the whole summer because it is so hot.

    The schedule raises further concerns, it often takes a long time to plan such instalments. I would recommend pushing it back at least one year. Also, as barnetlad pointed out, there is a distinct lack of units, they have to be included.

    Anyway, time to go through your 'argument' bit by bit.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    Or this could give a big boost for green energy being used instead of fossil fuels.
    There is no evidence that this will encourage green energy. It is a completely baseless claim. The most likely source of energy would be the acceleration of Fracking or more LNG being burnt at Didcot. Developing on this point this Bill will further push back the day when we are Carbon Neutral.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    It would improve the work life of machines in factories
    If it really did (which I highly doubt) then all companies affected by this legislation will already have implemented more cooling methods.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    this would reduce the amount of energy used in creating and using new devices
    In all factories where this legislation would effect, the heat would be mainly caused by the machines, this means that a massive amount of energy would be used cooling these, for no gain.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    Stop trying to derail this bill with ludicrous responses.
    Swap derail with debate and ludicrous with factual.


    (Original post by Ruitker)
    You are clearly still bitter about the whole election thing.
    Really cheap shot there. I held no grudge against you, I was just disappointed that you made such a poor political move. May I suggest that you drop any bad feelings against me.

    So I put it to you, the (Rt.) Honourable members of this House, refuse this reactionary bill that will damage the environment in an endless positive feedback loop and potentially cripple our economy in years to come.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ruitker)
    They aren't really reasons. Just petty words due to tensions.
    It's too prescriptive. You need temperature ranges, grace periods for breakdowns, exemptions for huge open spaces (which are likely to be cooler anyway), etc...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    I disagree with 'big government', that is one of the many reasons that I oppose this bill.First off it is proven the people work better in cooler temperatures (There is a follow-up study somewhere). Therefore any sensible company will already keep it cool. Common sense.Furthermore does this mean that if an air-con system is broken that a whole company could potentially shut down? I would disagree with this marginally less if 2.1 was amended to say 'Employees can refuse to work if this limit is exceeded for 5 consecutive days.' Otherwise we may have scenarios where whole swathes of government are not working because of a broken air con system.However it is the unintended consequences that worry me most. Currently in Heathrow it is in excess of 28 degrees, this ins much the same to many other airports currently (Tarmac soaking up heat, jet engines outputting heat etc. making the outside far hotter than the rest of the country there.) This means that potentially when it gets even slightly hot whole loads of airports may have to shut because those who load the luggage work have downed tools. Or bin collections may be cancelled for the whole summer because it is so hot.The schedule raises further concerns, it often takes a long time to plan such instalments. I would recommend pushing it back at least one year. Also, as barnetlad pointed out, there is a distinct lack of units, they have to be included.Anyway, time to go through your 'argument' bit by bit. There is no evidence that this will encourage green energy. It is a completely baseless claim. The most likely source of energy would be the acceleration of Fracking or more LNG being burnt at Didcot. Developing on this point this Bill will further push back the day when we are Carbon Neutral. If it really did (which I highly doubt) then all companies affected by this legislation will already have implemented more cooling methods.In all factories where this legislation would effect, the heat would be mainly caused by the machines, this means that a massive amount of energy would be used cooling these, for no gain.Swap derail with debate and ludicrous with factual.Really cheap shot there. I held no grudge against you, I was just disappointed that you made such a poor political move. May I suggest that you drop any bad feelings against me.So I put it to you, the (Rt.) Honourable members of this House, refuse this reactionary bill that will damage the environment in an endless positive feedback loop and potentially cripple our economy in years to come.
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. There is no maximum temperature so companies will not bother with it. Go out into the real world and you will see this.I agree with the possibility of a delay if the air con breaks down. This doesn't include airports. Common sense units. It isn't baseless at all. If more energy is used then the green percentage will increase. Yet again, go into the real world. The temperature greatly affects how well the machines run. If the area is cooled then there is less need for individual cooling systems.You all have a grudge. You will vote no on everything we put forward because you are all pathetic. We can play the same game. Remember you still have MPs in our seats.It would not cripple the economy :L You have no idea.I think the house would rather support the workers rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwertish)
    It's too prescriptive. You need temperature ranges, grace periods for breakdowns, exemptions for huge open spaces (which are likely to be cooler anyway), etc...
    I will add those in. You would be surprised, the factories can be large but they will still be very very hot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll also add that the Health and Safety Executive already enforces temperatures limits using the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requirement that "During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable."

    http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/faq.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwertish)
    I'll also add that the Health and Safety Executive already enforces temperatures limits using the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requirement that "During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable."
    I know. There is no specific temperature. Hence the reason for this bill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ruitker)
    I know. There is no specific temperature. Hence the reason for this bill.
    But if more than 10% – 20% (depending on the workplace) of workers complain then employers must carry out a "Thermal comfort risk assessment" to establish what a reasonable temperature is.

    I know this isn't a prescriptive requirement, but employers can be reported to the HSE and be prosecuted for failure of their duty of care if the temperature is "unreasonable".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwertish)
    But if more than 10% – 20% (depending on the workplace) of workers complain then employers must carry out a "Thermal comfort risk assessment" to establish what a reasonable temperature is.I know this isn't a prescriptive requirement, but employers can be reported to the HSE and be prosecuted for failure of their duty of care if the temperature is "unreasonable".
    Yes but this will never lead to anything being changed. There are so many easy ways the company can get out of facing any action.There is the need for a strict and clearly described limit and the corresponding fines.The company will call the heat 'unreasonable'if it is impossible to work - never before.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ruitker)
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. There is no maximum temperature so companies will not bother with it.
    Companies are not stupid, they will often withdraw workforces if it is to warm, and most have extensive health and safety policies. Companies are not stupid, even if their only motivation is profit, then they already would have taken steps to reduce the temperature, because it improves profitability and lowers the chance of the company from getting sued. Also the Health and safety executive already enforces something like this.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    Common sense units.
    The question is however is whether it can be used otherwise, you could potentially stay at home whenever you want if the temperature is above freezing due to the ambiguity of which unit is being used.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    It isn't baseless at all. If more energy is used then the green percentage will increase.
    No if more energy is being used, then cheap reliable (fossil) fuel will be used as it. Therefore reducing the renewable energy %. Also there is a contradiction in your posts. In your first post you imply that companies are selfish and are motivated by money. Yet you assume that Energy companies (under investigation for monopolising the market) will be altruistic by investigating in expensive renewable energy instead of cheap easy energy.

    (Original post by Ruitker)
    You all have a grudge. You will vote no on everything we put forward because you are all pathetic. We can play the same game.
    Why would I hold a grudge? It wouldn't have effected the outcome, I was disappointed because you were so short-sighted in fielding yourself. I most certainly do not vote no on everything you put forwards. I make my mind up on the content. I have voted for many bits of UKIP legislation in this parliament. Yet again baseless and potentially libellous if we were real MPs.

    May I enquire why you inserted the word 'all' I assume that you are referring to the Conservative party here. In which case, I doubt that would be forgotten soon.

    Are you also threatening to get your MPs to vote automatically no to all Conservative and Opposition legislation? Remember which party is the boss in our relationship.


    (Original post by Ruitker)
    Remember you still have MPs in our seats.
    Nope, not any more.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    Pretty anecdotal. I'd definitely have downed tools today if this policy was in effect
    Or you could have stopped for some orange juice with ice, or orange crush.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Or you could have stopped for some orange juice with ice, or orange crush.

    ^^^ Who the hell is this guy?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 3, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.